D&D 5E 2024 D&D is 2014 D&D with 4E sprinkled on top

[EzekielRaiden]

it sounds like a different game? i didn't just imagine 4e right? like, i might not of played it but i've got a pretty solid understanding that 5e's older sibling had a whole range of purely 'martial' classes that managed to be mundane, powerful and effective through levels 1-20 didn't it?

The problem with this answer, naturally, is that the people who want everyone to forget 4e ever existed are the ones who won the Edition War, the ones who demanded an apology and got one, and (at least in my not-so-humble opinion) led the creation of 5e. (Yes, I'm saying it: I think Mike Mearls is or at least was an edition warrior, and that he and I were not on the same side.)

Hence why I make the joke "The Edition That Must Not Be Named." Those "purely 'martial' classes that managed to be mundane, powerful and effective through [the whole level range]" were what the edition warriors smeared as "all classes are casters now", as "Fighters shooting lightning bolts from their arses", as "shouting limbs back on" (an edition war claim that Mike Mearls himself """"jokingly"""" repeated...but still meant it as the reason why the Warlord didn't deserve to exist as a class), and more.

And then we got 5e. Which made nearly every class a literal actual spellcaster, something people do actually complain about every now and then...and yet they do not do so anywhere near as much as the edition that never actually did that.

Yes, I'm more than a little bitter at the double standard that forgives 5e for actually doing the things 4e was merely accused of but didn't actually do.

 

[Remathilis]

Okay. Why should we, when magic's limit is "whatever you can think of"?

Unless we also set limits on magic, it straight-up isn't acceptable to demand hard, inviolable limits on martial power. Unless and until you agree to something like that, this argument is even more pointless than the one you wish to dismiss.

There is hard limits on magic. They are defined by the spells and magic items in the game. They are defined by the different spell lists given to each class. The ceiling be in space, but I know what a 20th level caster is capable of. This supposed mythical martial has limits of

So if there is no limits, I'll set the limit at Superboy Prime. I want to be so powerful as to punch reality and change it. Flight, heat vision, frost breath, time travel, super speed. Nothing less. If your martial class isn't capable of that, don't bother calling me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Okay. Why should we, when magic's limit is "whatever you can think of"?

Unless we also set limits on magic, it straight-up isn't acceptable to demand hard, inviolable limits on martial power. Unless and until you agree to something like that, this argument is even more pointless than the one you wish to dismiss.

Spellcasting certainly has limits. Lots of rules for spellcasting. Your acceptance of those particular limits may vary

 

[CreamCloud0]

Spellcasting certainly has limits. Lots of rules for spellcasting. Your acceptance of those particular limits may vary

yes, lots of rules and limits on how you use spellcasting, but the point being made is there are few-to-no limits on what magic can actually be used to achieve in DnD.

there are plenty of media where magic has things it can't do, so why isn't DnD held to those examples? magic can't create food, magic can't be used to change what someone truly feels or thinks, magic always has to leave a way to reverse or end it's effects, you can only possess one kind of magic...

slap some of those restrictions on magic and it might actually come close to being a fair ball game between martials and magic users.

 

[TwoSix]

I just don't think you can buff their combat numbers enough to make up for the raw versatility of spells like simulacrum or teleport.

You can, but you would also need to restrict a caster's ability to expend their slots on doing comparable damage to the martial.

Whenever I think about this topic, I try to frame it in these terms.

There are two orthogonal axes; there's simple and complex, and there's caster and martial. That makes 4 broad archetypes: Simple-Martial, Simple-Caster, Complex-Martial, and Complex-Caster.

What specific set of traits; strengths and weaknesses should be associated with each quadrant? And what capabilities should be specifically excluded?

My gut feeling (although I've gone back and forth on this) is that Simple classes should be more damage and small resource suites, Complex classes should be for narrative utility and deeper resource pools that allow for novas and/or clutch save abilities.

 

[Micah Sweet]

yes, lots of rules and limits on how you use spellcasting, but the point being made is there are few-to-no limits on what magic can actually be used to achieve in DnD.

there are plenty of media where magic has things it can't do, so why isn't DnD held to those examples? magic can't create food, magic can't be used to change what someone truly feels or thinks, magic always has to leave a way to reverse or end it's effects, you can only possess one kind of magic...

slap some of those restrictions on magic and it might actually come close to being a fair ball game between martials and magic users.

Agreed. D&D spell traditions should be more delineated, and there should be things magic can't do or does quite poorly. But WotC appears convinced enough folks don't want those limits that it would hurt sales if they put them in, so they don't. Maybe they're right. So if you want them you need to find or create the rules for such yourself, or play a different game that treats spellcasting differently. Just like every other thing in the rules we don't like.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Spellcasting certainly has limits. Lots of rules for spellcasting. Your acceptance of those particular limits may vary

Those are not limits on what spellcasting can do. They are limits only on when and how. The answer to "What can spellcasting do?" is everything. It can do everything. That's one of the reasons why, even with its sharply limited form compared to early editions, wish remains THE spell every high-level caster slavers to acquire.

Martial characters also have limits on when and how. For example, limited Rages per day, or limited maneuver dice, and a limited selection of maneuvers to choose from. So in that sense, both things already have limits regarding when and how. The old Berserker had the rather draconian limit that if they Frenzied too many times in a given day, they would straight-up DIE.

So. We have limits on when and how. Where are the limits on what?

 

[Remathilis]

You can, but you would also need to restrict a caster's ability to expend their slots on doing comparable damage to the martial.

I think the unspoken element to the discussion is that for a martial character to have parity with magical ones, you not only need to buff martials but nerf casters. Heavily.

4e did this by making the power system not only treat martial exploits like simple spells but reduced magic to similar confinement of effect. Powers were overwhelmingly combat focused. Utility powers lacked the wide variety of abilities that high level magic has. Rituals handled some of the "noncombat" magic uses, but tended towards the lower levels of utility. I will admit I did not follow 4e to it's end, but from what I can recall, nothing matched abilities like wish, gate or simulacrum. 4e magic dud damage + a rider, provided battlefield utility like movement or healing, or was a ritual any character will gold could use. By that measure, it's very easy to have martial power match magical power. There isn't much difference between a fire attack doing 4d6 damage plus burning and an arrow attack that does 4d6 damage plus slowed. Or a power that gives a fighter a climb speed of 10 and a power that lets a wizard levitate with a vertical movement of 10. The effect is the same, only the details change.

But 5e (and all older D&D) doesn't have that parity. Wizards and casters get far wider and more powerful effects, get them sooner, and are far more utilitarian. Nothing a martial character can do matches teleport, unless you're willing to give them Flash-like speed force and run to the location in under a minute. But take teleport and make it a ritual and then keep all other fast movement abilities to short distances (such within a typical battlefield) and you can have the fighter climb/jump/run to roughly approximate that kind of mobility.

Yes, none of this is new, but I think it's worth remembering that you cannot achieve equality with casters until the casters get a major haircut OR martials can mimic the supernatural abilities of spells. The two conversations are irrevocably linked.

 

[Emerikol]

Very much this! That whole "natural language" thing was a direct response to get as far away from 4e's keywords-laden text as possible. It also allowed the designers to engage in verbal gymnastics to disguise the 4eisms they brought into 5e (like healing surges turning into hit dice, which are now hit point dice in 2024).

I noticed it right away which is one of many reasons I didn't buy 5e. I think I could have house ruled surges away but everything together just made me throw up my hands.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You can, but you would also need to restrict a caster's ability to expend their slots on doing comparable damage to the martial.

Whenever I think about this topic, I try to frame it in these terms.

There are two orthogonal axes; there's simple and complex, and there's caster and martial. That makes 4 broad archetypes: Simple-Martial, Simple-Caster, Complex-Martial, and Complex-Caster.

What specific set of traits; strengths and weaknesses should be associated with each quadrant? And what capabilities should be specifically excluded?

My gut feeling (although I've gone back and forth on this) is that Simple classes should be more damage and small resource suites, Complex classes should be for narrative utility and deeper resource pools that allow for novas and/or clutch save abilities.

An excellent dichotomy, because...well...

There is no such thing as an actually simple caster. And there is no such thing as an actually complex martial. 5e has the most "complex" martial character (in 5.5e, probably either the Wild Heart Barbarian since your totem animal is per-rage now, or the Battle Master Fighter for obvious reasons) being dramatically simpler than the most "simple" caster (probably a blasting-focused Sorcerer? Or maybe a by-the-book Warlock of some kind?) It's frankly hard to even call any spellcaster simple, the closest being the Paladin...which is 5e's closest approximation of a true, innate caster-martial hybrid to begin with.

For my part, the heavily complex classes should reward clever play, but as a direct consequence, be frequently subject to "well, you chose the wrong situational abilities for this context, so...sorry, not much you can do right now." Conversely, the heavily simple classes should have a pretty good solid baseline of capability in all three pillars, but be inflexible with that kit: when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail, more or less. In the grey area between the greatest extremes thereof, there would ideally be classes that have a little bit of flexibility, but still mostly locked in.

The revised Champion Fighter actually isn't the worst (anymore), but it's still a bit short of the "something for every pillar" department. Had they not done the utterly infuriating design choice of making Tactical Mind eating your Second Wind uses, that would have gone a long way toward closing the remaining gap for players who really do just want The Simplest Experience, Please. And then, just as Eldritch Knight gives just the lightest taste of what a Wizard can do, Battle Master would thus be the lightest taste of what a proper Warlord class could do, with the uppermost echelons of a Warlord being moderately-high complexity--not as complex as the most complex casters (WIzards, presumably), but comparable to (say) a Cleric.